i

Commercialized Media Environment and Sustainability of Community

Radio: Case Study of Mang’elete 89.1FM

James Mailu Singa

Reg. No.: K50/79294/2012

A Research Project Submitted to the School of Journalism and Mass

Communication in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Award of the Degree of Master of Arts in Communication Studies, at

the University of Nairobi.

November 2014

ii

DECLARATION

This dissertation is my original work and has not been presented in and/ or to any other

forum or audience, in any other university or examination body.

Signed…………………………………… Date…………………………..

Name: James Mailu Singa,

Reg. No.: K50/79294/2012

I confirm that the work presented in this dissertation was carried out by the above named

candidate under my supervision.

Signature ………………………………… Date…..………………………..

Dr. Hezron Mogambi

Supervisor

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am immensely indebted to many people who made it possible to undertake this

research. I May not enumerate all of them here, but I reserve special mention for the

following:

Dr. Hezron Mogambi, my mentor and supervisor; my Masters degree programme course

instructors: Dr. George Gathigi, Dr. Silas Oriaso, Dr. Samuel Kabuu, Dr. Samuel Siringi,

Dr. Elias Mokua, Dr. Haron Mwangi, Dr. Kiptiness; Esther Mulekye Venzi, research

assistant (Data analyst); Samuel Mwendwa Matevu, Research assistant (Data analyst);

Phillip Nzangi, my Research assistant; Redempta Nthia, the founder and the current

Executive Director, Mang‘elete Community radio project; Meshack Nyamai, the station

Manager, Mang‘elete Community Radio;…. And to GOD ALMIGHTY.

iv

DEDICATION

To Esther Mulekye Venzi, my wife;

To Lawrence Mwendwa Mailu, our son;

To my family;

To all communications professionals and students.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ................................................................................................................ ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii

DEDICATION ................................................................................................................... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... v

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ x

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... xi

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................... xii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1

1.0: Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

1.1: Background .................................................................................................................. 1

1.1.1: Radio Broadcasting Medium in South Eastern Kenya ................................. 3

1.1.2: About Mang‘elete FM .................................................................................. 4

1.2: Problem Statement ...................................................................................................... 5

1.3: General Objective ........................................................................................................ 6

1.4: Specific Objectives ...................................................................................................... 6

1.5: Research Questions ...................................................................................................... 6

1.6: Rationale and Justification ........................................................................................... 7

1.7: Scope and Limitations ................................................................................................. 7

1.8 Operational Definition of Terms and Phrases ............................................................... 8

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL

FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................................. 9

2.0: Introduction .................................................................................................................. 9

vi

2.1: Empirical Review ........................................................................................................ 9

2.1.1: Legal versus operational definition: Community radio ................................ 9

2.1.2: Concept of sustainability ............................................................................ 11

2.1.3: Commercialized media environment .......................................................... 13

2.1.4: African Case Review: Community radio in East Africa: An impact and

sustainability assessment of three community radios within the EACMP (2007) 16

2.2: Research Gap ............................................................................................................. 18

2.3: Conceptual framework ............................................................................................... 19

2.4: Theoretical Framework .............................................................................................. 20

2.4.1: Public Sphere Model:.................................................................................. 20

2.4.2: Participatory Communication Model: ........................................................ 22

2.4.3: Systems Theory of Management ................................................................ 24

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY .................................................................... 26

3.1: Research design ......................................................................................................... 26

3.2: Research Population .................................................................................................. 26

3.3: Research Approach; Sampling and Sampling Techniques ........................................ 27

3.4: Data Collection Instruments and Techniques ............................................................ 30

3.5: Data Instrument Pretesting......................................................................................... 30

3.6: Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 31

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ......................... 32

4.0: Introduction ................................................................................................................ 32

4.1: Respondents‘ Response ............................................................................................. 32

4.2: Findings and Discussion ............................................................................................ 34

vii

4.2.1: Effect of commercialized media environment on Community radio: ........ 34

4.2.2: Listener preference: Commercial radio stations versus Community radio

station .................................................................................................................... 39

4.2.3: Operational Sustainability - Programming: Mang‘elete FM versus

Commercial radio stations .................................................................................... 41

4.2.4: Financial Sustainability: Balancing Donor funding against local community

involvement: ......................................................................................................... 43

4.2.5: Institutional and organizational sustainability - Leadership, management

and community participation: Commercial radio versus Community radio ......... 50

4.2.6: Social Sustainability: Goodwill Support from Local community: ............. 52

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 56

5.0: Introduction ................................................................................................................ 56

5.1: Summary of findings ................................................................................................. 56

5.2: Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 58

5.2.1: Enhancing local community‘s participation in managing community radio

project ................................................................................................................... 58

5.2.2: Understanding the local community interests, tastes and needs ................. 58

5.2.3: Tapping into local community‘s goodwill .................................................. 59

5.2.4: Develop network & collaborations- community radio networks................ 60

5.2.5: Need for a comparative research on sustainability of community radio

stations in a commercialized media environment ................................................. 60

5.3: Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 61

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 62

viii

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 66

Appendix I: Location of the Makueni County in Kenya ................................................. 66

Appendix II: Makueni County Administrative units/political units ................................ 67

Appendix III: Interviews Programme As Conducted .................................................... 68

Appendix IV: Listener‘s Survey Questionnaire............................................................... 69

Appendix V: Advertisers‘ Survey Questionnaire ............................................................ 71

Appendix VI: Interview Schedules ................................................................................. 72

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: Respondents‘ analysis ...................................................................................... 33

Table 4.2: Listening frequency: Makindu, Mtito Andei and Kibwezi clusters

combined ............................................................................................................... 40

Table 4.3: Advertisers‘ preference to advertise: ............................................................... 49

Table 4.4: Listeners‘ preferred radio station for charity support ...................................... 53

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................... 19

Figure 4.1: Respondents per Gender ................................................................................. 33

Figure 4.2: Media Consumption Habits in Kenya (2011)................................................. 34

Figure 4.3: Radio Consumption Kibwezi, Mtito and Makindu ........................................ 35

Figure 4.4 Total frequency of listenership: ....................................................................... 37

Figure 4.5 Radio access .................................................................................................... 37

Figure 4.6: Total radio medium access: ............................................................................ 39

Figure 4.7 Listeners programming interest ....................................................................... 42

Figure 4.8 Radio Presenters Popularity ............................................................................ 47

Figure 4.9 Total Presenter popularity: .............................................................................. 49

Figure 4.10 Advertisers‘ Preference To Advertise ........................................................... 50

Figure 4. 11: Listeners‘ preferred radio station for charity support .................................. 54

Figure 4.12: Advertisers‘ preferred radio station for charity support ............................... 54

xi

ABSTRACT

The liberalization of broadcasting airwaves in Kenya in 1990s saw proliferation of the

private FM radio stations. These radio stations have commercialized the media

environment with throat-cut competition, where even the programming must have

commercial value, to attract the right audience in order to attract advertisers. The public,

private and community radio stations are competing for the same or similar audience. As

a result, this has created a challenge on the sustainability of the community radio projects

in Kenya, which usually depend on donors to fund their operations.

This study was therefore aimed at exploring how sustainable is the community radio in

such competitively commercialized media setting. The study also sought identify

challenges and opportunities for the same in order to remain sustainable and viable,

without losing focus of its development agenda to empower local community by

remaining a participatory media tool for the community, by the community. The research

drew lessons around sustainability of community radio by focusing on a case study on

one of Community radios in Kenya, Mang‘elete FM, in Nthongoni, Kibwezi, Makueni

County. It adopted a mixed qualitative and quantitative research methods to collect

information through questionnaires, Focus Group Discussion, one-on-one interviews and

Document reviews, which were analyzed and presented as narrative, frequency

distribution tables, graphs and charts from which inferences and conclusions were drawn,

and research report compiled for presentation.

The study found that the sustainability of community radio is highly challenged by

growing commercially oriented radio stations. Faced by poor leadership and management

as well as low community participation, the community radio projects have been unable

to withstand shocks of donor exit. Nevertheless, this study found that community radio

stations such as Mang‘elete Radio still enjoy consider considerable goodwill from local

communities who identify with stations due to their proximity which brings about sense

of local ownership. The study recommends that, together with these opportunities, the

community radio stations can improve their chances of sustainability by using volunteer

programmes involving the local community.

xii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AMARC: Association Mondiale Des Radiodiffuseurs Communautaires (World

AMREF: The African Medical and Research Foundation

Association of Community Radio Broadcasters)

CCK/ CAK: Communications Commission of Kenya/ Communications Authority

CRAK: Community Radio Association of Kenya

EACMP: East African Community Media Project

ENA : EcoNews Africa

KBC: Kenya Broadcasting Corporation

KCOMNET: Kenya Community Media Network

MCIDP: Mang‘elete Community Integrated Development Project

of Kenya

PSB: Public Service Broadcasters

RMS: Royal Media Services

SIDA: Swedish International Development Cooperative Agency

UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

USSR: Union of Soviet Socialist Republic

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.0: Introduction

This chapter presents the historical context and justification for development and growth

of community radio globally, in Africa and locally, in Kenya. It then establishes the

challenge on community radio sustainability posed by growing commercial media in

general and private radio in particular. This forms the basis for the problem statement in

this research from where the general and specific objectives, justification and the

significance of the study are derived.

1.1: Background

World over, radio medium and especially in the third (developing) world is the most

easily accessed, and affordable and portable medium, since it is a medium that does not

require high literacy level of the audience, especially in the contemporary media

environment where radio is regionalized, broadcasting in local dialects world over, as

compared to other media outlets such television, which is more expensive, need a source

of electricity to operate, or the print media which require higher literacy level whereby,

consumers of such medium need to able to read (Kanyegirire, A., 2002). More so,

compared to other media such as Television, the production costs of radio programmes

are relatively low, making it easy to manage.

Historically, in most of Europe, radio broadcasting began in the 1920s as an activity

organized by the state. According to Mytton, G. (1999), Radio was run either as a public

service more or less independently of the government or directly by the government as an

2

instrument of the State. Thus, in Britain, the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands,

Switzerland and a few others, broadcasting was legislated for as a public service provided

for by a non-governmental agency, independent of political authority, but established by

the State. In the communist countries, such as Russia (Former USSR), China, North

Korea and also in France and some other European states, broadcasting was (and is) run

as a department of the government. On the other hand, in the United States from the very

beginning, radio, and later television also, was organized as a commercial profit-making

enterprise.

Public Service Broadcasting (PSB),had therefore been established as the ideal application

of the ‗public sphere‘. However ,background of liberalization and privatization that

started in mid 20th

century lead to growth of private media operated as enterprises for

commercial revenue, forcing PSB to compete for same revenue and audiences. PSB, and

particularly the public radio could no longer meet its public service functions efficiently

(Kanyegirire, A 2002). It is against this background that advocates of media reform put

forth the need for non-commercial radio. This type of reform called for ‗community

radio‘, a viable non-profit and non-commercial media Radio Sutatenza, established in

1947 in Colombia is considered as the first ever developing world community radio

station. A miners‘ radio in Bolivia would emerge two years later to press for better

working conditions for miners, and was supported by miners themselves who pledged a

portion of their monthly salaries towards station‘s running costs. This was first recorded

use by sector of society of radio broadcasting to improve its socio-economic status. (Da

Costa, P., 2012:138).

3

In Africa, the first community radio was set up in May 1982, in Homa bay Kenya, under

partnership between the UNESCO and Government. However, the Homabay 1982

initiative was short lived, following lack of support from both UNESCO and Kenyan

Government (Oriare et al, 2010:6). Then, Mang‘elete applied for license in 1997, but had

to wait until 2002 (Nyanjom,O., 2012: 20).UNESCO would aid in setting up other

community radio stations, such as Radio Dzimwe (Malawi), Radio Katatura (Namibia)

and Mazabuka community radio (Zambia). Since then, community radio has grown

exponentially in several other Africa countries such as South Africa, Mali, Niger, Sierra

Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, among others (Da Costa, 2012).

1.1.1: Radio Broadcasting Medium in South Eastern Kenya

South Eastern Kenya is a region mainly populated by Kamba language speakers

occupying three counties of Kitui, Machakos and Makueni. The main towns and urban

centres are more cosmopolitan, with members of other communities within and without

Kenya who work mainly in those towns and urban centres. The region is served by

different communication media, including Television, Radio, Print, Internet, as well as

mobile phone communications. According to Nyanjom, O. (2012), Eastern Kenya has 44

licensed broadcasting frequencies.

Radio broadcasting service is perhaps the most popular and well elaborate media in the

region, with both national radio stations broadcasting mainly in English and Swahili or

mixture of the two languages, as well as regional radio stations, broadcasting in the local

dialect, Kamba language.

4

These radio stations include KBC (English and Swahili services, with some channels

broadcasting in Kamba Language) which is the public broadcaster, several private owned

radio stations, broadcasting either in English, such as Radio Africa Group Ltd-owned

Kiss 100FM / Classic FM, and NMG- owned Nation FM; or in Swahili, such as RMS-

owned Citizen Radio, Standard Group – owned Radio Maisha, Radio Africa Group –

owned Radio Jambo and Media Max Limited-owned Milele FM. There are also other

faith based stations such as Radio Waumini FM (Catholic), Biblia Husema FM, Hope

FM, among others.

Others are privately owned radio stations, broadcasting in Kamba language, which

according to Nyanjom, O. (2012), include Musyi FM, Athiani FM, Mbaitu FM, County

FMand Syokimau FM. It is also possible to get some other few vernacular stations from

other community languages such as Kikuyu Meru and Kalenjin languages, due to the

proximity of the region to Nairobi city, from where most of these vernacular private radio

stations broadcast from. Mang‘elete FM remains the only community radio station in the

region.

1.1.2: About Mang’elete FM

Mang‘elete FM is a community radio station owned by 33 women groups who came

together to form a larger group, Mang‘elete Community Integrated Development

Programme (MCIDP) (Oriale et al, (2010), locally called MBOSONI in 1985, an

organization through they used as a vehicle to establish various community projects in

Makueni. One of such projects was donor supported community Radio, Mang‘elete FM

5

situated in Nthongoni, 14 Kilometres from Mtito Andei, 4 km from Chyulu hills, and 3

km from Tsavo west national park. The station whose 90% of its broadcasting is in

Kamba language, and 10% in Swahili, for the benefit of nearby Maasai and Taita

communities, went on air on 22nd

February, 2004. (Githethwa N., (Ed), 2008:38)

1.2: Problem Statement

Despite concerted facilitation and intervention efforts especially by Non-Governmental

Organizations as well as international Intergovernmental supra bodies such as UNESCO

prioritizing support for growth of community radio in Kenya, the sustainability, and

therefore, the growth of community radio is still low.

In contrast, commercial radio stations in the country have grown in numbers, in reach

(coverage), in popularity and thus, in audience share market, despite the fact that the first

such commercial FM radio was established over 15 years after establishment of first

community radio in Kenya. Also, driven by profits, commercial radio stations are not

ideal for fostering community‘s social change and development agenda, as opposed to

community radio stations, which are development oriented.

As by October 2012, Nyanjom, O. (2012) points out that Communications Authority of

Kenya (formerly Communications Commission of Kenya) had issued 365 radio

frequencies, of which 300 frequencies were said to be operational, in use by slightly over

100 radio stations. Of these, according to Maina, S.N. (2013) only 12 Community Radio

stations have been granted frequencies by CAK (formerly CCK).This low community

6

radio growth rate and low market share, compared to growth, coverage and audience

market of commercial radio stations, brings into question how competitive and

sustainable the former has been, since they are both operating in the same media

environment.

1.3: General Objective

The general Objective of this study was to investigate how sustainable community radio

is currently, in such competitively commercialized media setting.

1.4: Specific Objectives

a) To determine how commercialized media environment in Kenya has affected

sustainability of community radio;

b) To identify sustainability challenges and opportunities for community radio in

commercialized media in Kenya;

c) To document key community radio sustainability lessons arising from competitive

commercialized media environment.

1.5: Research Questions

a) How has commercialized media environment in Kenya affected the sustainability

of community radio?

b) What are main sustainability challenges and opportunities for community radio?

c) What sustainability lessons can be learnt on existing community radio models in

Kenya?

7

1.6: Rationale and Justification

The existing scholarly research work on community radio in Kenya has not delved deeply

and in a dedicated manner, into the question of understanding effect the independent

variable of commercialized media on dependent variable of sustainability of community

radio, something that this research intended to address.

The outcomes of the research are practical sustainability strategies that community radio

can adopt in order to adjust to the commercialized media arena without changing the

original purpose as development and social change tool. Of interest in this research

therefore, was to investigate the relationship between commercialization and

sustainability of existing and potential community radios.

1.7: Scope and Limitations

The research sought to draw lessons around sustainability of community radio by

focusing on a case study on one community radio in Kenya, Mang‘elete FM, in

Nthongoni, Kibwezi, Makueni County. The study focused on investigating of how

proliferation of commercial radio stations, especially those broadcasting in Kamba

language has affected sustainability of Mang‘elete Fm. The research took two months to

complete. The sources of primary and secondary information included the management

and the staff members of the Mang‘elete FM, local community members, media law

experts, advertisers, listeners, published research work and statistics from relevant media

institutions.

8

1.8 Operational Definition of Terms and Phrases

Community: This is a homogenous group of people with a common binding factor such

as geographical location, language, religion, race, class, and opinions.

Community radio: This is a radio broadcasting service which is for, by and about the

community, whose ownership and management is representative of the community,

pursuing social development agenda and it operates as a non-profit entity.

Public Broadcasting Service: This is a non-commercial television or radio station

devoted to quality public programming and are funded through public contributions,

government allocations and grants from private industry.

Private and commercial broadcasting service: These are broadcasting media stations,

usually privately owned and that are operated for profit or as part of a profit-making

enterprise, generating their revenue from advertising or sponsorships

Media environment: This refers to conditions, including social, economical,

geographical, political and cultural, in which media operate in.

Sustainable media: These media that have the potential for long-term maintenance of

well being, which have ecological, economic, political and cultural dimensions.

9

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL

FRAMEWORK

2.0: Introduction

This chapter explores past scholarly inquiries and the knowledge developed into the

relationship between the sustainability of community radio and commercialized media

environment. I have pointed the challenge of defining community radio legally vis-à-vis

the operational definition. More so, scholars have delved into what ‗sustainability‘ of

community radio means, to bring out a more holistic understanding, an understanding

that takes sustainability beyond being a synonym to financial sustainability. In this

chapter, I propose a hybrid approach to achieving sustainability of community radio.

Theoretically, I based this research on Public sphere model, participatory communication

model and the system theory of management.

2.1: Empirical Review

2.1.1: Legal versus operational definition: Community radio

One challenge in addressing the community radio‘s sustainability has been defining what

a community radio is, theoretically and practically, and then, secondly understanding the

concept of ‗sustainability‘ of the community radio. Maina, S.N. (2013) has it that there is

no clear definition of community radio since they are operationally placed in the same

category as public and commercial or private radio, meaning that they all operate in the

same environment despite having different legal definitions. This, she adds, means that

Kenya‘s community radio has not received much intellectual and critical research

10

attention and therefore, there is little information written specifically about Community

Radio.

Fraser and Restrepo-Estrada (2002) term community radio as a form of non-profit radio

broadcasting service owned and managed by a particular community, either through trust

or through a foundation. He further adds that apart from the media tool relying on

community‘s resources for sustainability, its programming is based on local audience

access and participation, reflecting on the needs and interests the same community.

Banda, F. (2003) has it that according to the South African Broadcasting Act of 1999,

community broadcasting service is not only fully controlled by a non-profit entity and

carried on for non-profitable purposes, but also exists to serve a particular community,

encouraging members of the community served or persons associated with promoting the

interests of such community to participate in selection and provision of programmes to be

broadcast and it funded by donations, grants, sponsorships, or membership fees. Put

concisely, the African Charter on Broadcasting terms community radio as a

―Broadcasting which is for, by and about community, whose ownership and management

is representative of the community which purely pursues social development agenda and

which is non-profit‖ (Da Costa, P., 2012:137).

From the above definitions, it is possible to derive four aspects of a community radio: It

is community owned, it is defined by participation of the local community in

programming and management, its agenda is development oriented and empowerment of

11

local community and more explicit; it exists as a ‗not-for-profit‘ broadcasting service.

Allen, K & Gagliardone, I. (2011)point out that there is a distinction between vernacular

radio and community radio, where the former describe either community or commercial

enterprises that broadcast in local ethnic community language, with commercial ones

operating for profit, while promoting partisan agenda. In contrast, community radio

strives to serve the public, with their broadcast that contain messages that are socially

useful to the community.

2.1.2: Concept of sustainability

Indeed, community radio is an ideal media tool for providing local communities with a

platform through which they can experience social change, achieving community

empowerment and development, fostering behaviour chance, while alleviating poverty.

According to Fraser & Restrepo - Estrada (2002), there is documented evidence pointing

to the success that community radio has opened up space to air, debate and foster

solutions around key issues of concern to the community. World over, community radio

has become strategy of choice to address poverty at the grass root level since it can reach

communities in a way that other forms of broadcasting or media cannot. It is the medium

of the voiceless, and mouthpiece of the oppressed people.

Community radio is globally considered as an intervention of choice for deepening

participation and community ownership, where beyond empowering communities, it can

catalyze behaviour change and impact positively on wider development outcomes. Allen,

K & Gagliardone, I. (2011) point out that community radio is often regarded as a reliable

12

and calming force during times of political instability, hence the growing scholarly

interest into how it can remain sustainable media tool.

There is a misconception to always view community Radio‘s sustainability question as a

question of financial stability of the station. Da Costa, P., (2012) views sustainability in a

broader sense, proposing a more holistic and wider definition that, sustainability has three

dimensions which ‗determine the ability of community radio to survive and grow. The

first dimension, according to Da Costa, is ‗Institutional Sustainability‘, meaning the

community ownership of the community radio. Unless the local community can fully

participate in the management, decision making, partnership and policy formulation

processes of the radio, then there is risk of perceiving such community radio as ‗foreign‘.

Second dimension is what Da Costa refers to as ‗social sustainability‘, which according

to him refers to participation of local community in production and airing of programmes

at both decision making and operational levels. In this, local community would own

station more if they are involved in the decisions about what kind of issues to focus on as

part of programming, and then local members being in actual production and airing of

such programmes, as technicians, producers, reporters, among others.

Da Costa identifies financial sustainability, which he refers to as the model employed to

ensure generation of revenue, how the funds are managed and accounted for. Jallov, B.,

(2007) adds a fourth dimension: Organizational sustainability, which includes capacity

building programmes for staff and local community in regard to management and

13

operations of the community radio, existing legislations and policies, the technology

being employed and existence of relevant networks.

2.1.3: Commercialized media environment

Globally, Mytton, G (1999), in his handbook on Radio and Television research, states

that Broadcasting in most countries is now being diversified. Countries in Europe, Asia

and Africa that formerly had state or public service monopolies have permitted

independent broadcasters. Many of these operate on a commercial basis, relying on the

sale of advertising and the commercial sponsorship of programmes.

In Europe, non-commercial radio preceded, not followed, commercial broadcasting with

commercial channels being created in 1990s. According to Dunaway (1998), most of

these community broadcasting services were municipal- or party-funded, though in

France and Norway, they drew funds from a national levy. These community stations

received regular financial support from a municipality or an institution charged with

serving the local population. This meant that stations rarely, if ever, tested audience

loyalty by requesting donations over the air (Dunaway, D., 1998:93).

However, Dunaway, D. (1998) has it that by the 1990s community radio had become

survivors in the hard battle for funds, victim of tax-cutting disaffection with the social

democratic/welfare state. Thus, faced with the question of growing commercialized

sustainability model, and with reducing donor support, for these community radio outlets

in North America and Western Europe, an idea of a public community radio was

14

conceived, where, they started accepting advertisements, turning into competitors for the

local state broadcasters and the audience-winning, profit-driver formats of commercial

broadcasters (Dunaway(1998). As a result, today community radio is caught between two

perspectives: open access, which fulfills the original aesthetic and moral imperative of

community radio‘s founding generation; and audience-building, referring to size,

character, and financial resources.

In Kenya, to illustrate how commercialized is media environment, a 2011 report titled

‗Explosion in media changes: Audience and advertising trends in Kenya’ by IPSOS

Synovate, has it that the media landscape in Kenya is currently dominated by vernacular

private (commercial) radio stations powered by the fact that 81% of Kenyan population

aged 15 years and above use vernacular language. This popularity is even higher in rural

areas.

The report adds that this popularity and access of radio is increased by growth of

technology where local community can access radio broadcasts even on mobile phones.

Further, the report has it that proliferation of many (commercial) radio stations has led to

fragmentation of audience, with listeners switching from one station to the other.

This means that commercial radios, motivated by profits would employ the best radio

talent, programming, technology, et cetera, to increase market share to gain more

advertising revenue, to the detriment of growth of community radio, which can‘t compete

with the former, threatening its survival, especially where donor funds are drying up.

15

The rate of commercialization of media environment in Kenya is represented by statistics

in the another IPSOS Synovate report (2014) which indicate that the advertising revenue

in 2013 was Ksh94.5 billion, a 5% growth compared to advertising expenditure in 2012,

which was Ksh90.4 billion. This indicates a steady positive growth, compared to Kshs

3.9 billion in 1999 and Kshs. 49.2 billion in 2010 (IPSOS Synovate report, 2011).The

report states that most share of the indicated advertising went to radio at 47% followed by

Television at 41% and print at 12%. Overall, advertising expenditure on radio was

Ksh44.6 billion in 2013, a modest increase of 0.8% from statistics in 2012.The IPSOS

Synovate (2011) report states that although steady economic growth from 2004 to 2007

contributed to growth of this revenue, majorly, the growth was due to fragmented

audience, brought about by rapid proliferation of commercial radio stations within the

same period.

Even though there are documented success stories of community radio still remaining

operational, there are also many community radio stations which have failed to remain

viable or sustainable, hence high attrition rate. For instance, the first community radio set

up in Homa bay, Kenya could not survive without support of donors. Da costa (2012) has

it that community radio stations in Africa, and more so, true in Kenya, are heavily

dependent on donor funding for survival, operating in media environment where airwaves

are dominated by more accessible and popular commercial radio stations.

This precarious Modus Operandi means that in case donor community pulls out its

funding, the operations of community media are grounded, making it extremely difficult

16

for these radios to compete with profit oriented and well established commercial radio

stations. These commercial radio stations are more oriented to profit making, rather than

development agenda, hence, they are more ‗aggressive‘ than community radio.

According to Fraser & Restrepo - Estrada (2002), like community radio services,

commercial radio are local, broadcasting in local dialect, targeting the same local

audiences.

The environment, in which many community radio stations operate, is dominated by

donors, with the airwaves dominated by more accessible and popular commercial radio

stations. Together with lack of sufficient community ownership and leadership; funding

constraints and distorted incentives, this has made their sustainability of community radio

a huge challenge (Da Costa, P., 2012). This is made harder for community radio by

existing legislation, since, according to the Kenya Information and Communications Act

(2009, amended 2013) , community radio license is granted on condition of the

community broadcasting service operates as not-for-profit community initiative with the

intention of involving local community in its management and benefits (Nyanjom, O.

(2012).

2.1.4: African Case Review: Community radio in East Africa: An impact and

sustainability assessment of three community radios within the EACMP (2007)

This was a research by Birgitte Jallov on three community radio stations that participated

in East Africa Community Media Project (EACMP) supported by Swedish International

Development Cooperation Agency, SIDA, and coordinated by EcoNews Africa (ENA), a

17

Non-governmental Organization that was based in Nairobi, aimed at combating poverty

in three selected communities in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania.

In this research, it was established that community radio stations targeted, including,

Mang‘elete FM,(Kenya) Kibaale-Kagadi FM, (Uganda) and Orkonerei Radio Services

(Tanzania) had indicated high social sustainability and ownership. However, they

remained weak in areas of institutional and financial sustainability (Da Costa, P.,

2012).Among the important lessons from this research, as pointed out by Da Costa, was

that community radios need to be more networked with other stations, to reduce their

fragility and improve their sustainability.

Da Costa (2012) singled out the case of Mang‘elete FM, in that it is in considerable

difficulties because it is the only one of the three stations that separated itself from

community based organization that originally hosted it, that is, EACMP. The other two,

according to Githethwa (2010) have been able to overcome challenges brought about by

collapse of EcoNews Africa in 2010, due to their strong institutional linkages and

dynamic leadership. Allen, K & Gagliardone, I (2011), in their Media Map Project case

studies in Kenya point out that community ownership is difficult to maintain in these

community radio stations, which threatens their sustainability and quality. They add that

these stations depend on the donor funding and that many find it difficult to remain

sustainable, once the donors leave.

18

2.2: Research Gap

A lot of research, as highlighted above, has been and continue to be undertaken on

sustainability of community radio projects generally, and a lot of literature has so far

been developed in the last decade. However, a closer scrutiny of these research projects

would indicate that issue of sustainability has in most cases, been superficially handled as

part of the larger research projects and more so, in general terms. Thus, very little insight

exists in understanding specific independent variables that affect sustainability per se.

The commercialized environment is bound to be even more competitive as new

technologies are being employed by commercial stations (and other media outlets) to get

the market edge. This means that for the purposes of increasing sustainability of

community radio, more research is needed to understand the impact of existing

independent variables such as commercialized media environment, rapidly changing

communication technologies, among others.

19

2.3: Conceptual framework

Figure 2.1 Conceptual Framework

Community radio (media) Sustainability Model

Source: (Author)

Listener preference

Advertiser preference

Donor relations

Community Support

Stable Revenue

Sense of local ownership

Sound management

Sustainable Community Radio:

Staff retention

Better remuneration

Infrastructure

Better programming

High market rating

Community empowerment;

Community Development agenda ;

Community social change.

Local community

ownership

Community participation

(Management/ Volunteers)

Diversified media products

and services

Networks and

collaborations

20

2.4: Theoretical Framework

This research is grounded theoretically in public sphere; participatory communication

models and Systems Theory of management.

2.4.1: Public Sphere Model:

The essence of Community radio is to provide a forum on which members of public can

exchange ideas, discuss of common issues of concern, while creating an arena that

mediates between state and society. This is what public sphere model of communication

posits. Germany philosopher Jurgern Habermas (1962;1989), the proponent of this model

defines ‗public sphere‘ as a forum where private individuals can debate public affairs,

criticize the authority of state and call on those in power to justify their positions before

an informed and reasoning public, which is independent of government and partisan

economic forces (Williams, K. 2003).

Public Sphere model is grounded on free flow of information and communication, where

media institutions are essential to its effective working. Habermas justifies historical

evolution of public sphere model, pointing out that growth of mass society in seventeenth

and eighteenth century provided forum for liberal thought, where this freedom was

manifested through growth of critical reflection in plays, novels and letters, and flowering

of public discussions in outlets such as in universities, coffee houses as well as the

emerging newly independent private newspapers (Curran 1991:83). These developments

had by nineteenth century resulted to formation of a public sphere characterized by open

21

debate, critical scrutiny, full reportage, increased accessibility and independence of actors

from crude economic interests as well as free from state control (Webster, 1995).

Habermas states that from nineteenth century onwards, growth of power of state, the

emergence of corporate capitalism and transformation of media into commercial

operations, now driven by desire for making profits by their owners, rather than acting as

information providers for their readers, corrupted this public sphere (Williams, K. 2003).

Williams explains that this Market-driven capitalism overrode the principle of public

communication, where public opinion was being manipulated and manufactured for

publicity, advertising, public relations and social engineering.

Webster (1995) states that in 20th century, mass media has developed into monopoly

capitalistic organizations and therefore, their role as key disseminators of public

information is diminished. As a result, these commercial media (including privately

owned radio stations) have become arms of capital interest. Therefore, with public arena

and opinion commoditized by commercial media, the public voice from community is

lost, hence creating danger where community‘s social and development agenda is lost on

profit oriented media channels.

One basic assumption in this model is that media solely, is a resource for information, an

open forum for debate and discussion and a watchdog on behalf of the public. Therefore,

based on this assumption, Kanyegirire, A. (2002) opines that there is need for a

22

movement in media that consciously resists powerful influences, such as commercial

pressures, so as to enable it to fulfill its democratic responsibility to the public.

2.4.2: Participatory Communication Model:

Different development communication scholars have overtime attempted to develop a

working communication model that effectively leads to sustainable development. Among

such early models is Harold Lasswell‘s communication theory modeled along a linear

communication approach, which was understood to mean transfer of information from

source to receiver in a step-by-step change process (Tufte M. & Mefalopulos, P. (2009).

According to Servaeas J. (ed) (2002) this model sees the communication process mainly

as a message going from a sender to a receiver. Atypical example of such a strategy is

situated in the area of family planning, where communication means like posters,

pamphlets, radio, and television attempt to persuade the public to accept birth control

methods. Similar strategies are used on campaigns regarding health and nutrition,

agricultural projects and education.

In these early strategic communication approaches, there was no participatory element.

Instead, Tufte M. & Mefalopulos, P. (2009) state that the power of communication to

enhance development was in crafting persuasive content and adequately targeting the

audience. Such approaches, including Everret Rodger‘s diffusion theory, have been often

seen as elitist, with a vertical or top-down orientation, and have a danger of creating a

23

dependence syndrome on recipients, endangering the sustainability of the project, once

the benefactors such as donors of a community radio, pull out.

Servaes (2002) sees the participatory communication model as ideal, since it incorporates

the concepts in the framework of multiplicity. This is a model that stresses on reciprocal

collaboration throughout all levels of participation, with key focus on the local

community. It is at the community level that the problems of living conditions are

discussed, and interactions with other communities are elicited. The most developed form

of participation is self-management. It stresses the importance of cultural identity of local

communities and of democratization and participation at all levels—international,

national, local and individual.

This principle implies the right to participate in the planning and production of media

content. More important is that participation is made possible in the decision-making

regarding the subjects treated in the messages and regarding the selection procedures.

Nevertheless, participation does not imply that there is no longer a role for development

specialists, benefactors (partners) planners, and institutional leaders. It only means that

the viewpoint of the local groups of the public is considered before the resources for

development projects (Servaes, J. (Ed): 2002).

This approach is crucial in understanding the social and institutional sustainability of

community, that is, how the local community own the radio station, how it participates in

its management, as well as content production processes. The successes and failures of

24

most development projects (such as a community radio) are often determined by two

crucial factors: communication and people‘s involvement (Fraser C. & Restrepo-Estrada

(1998)).

2.4.3: Systems Theory of Management

Finally, the research is informed by Systems Theory of Management, as advanced by

biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy in 1951, who posits that:

―A living organism is not a conglomeration of separate elements but a definite

system, possessing organization and wholeness. An organism is an open system

which maintains a constant state while matter and energy which enter it keep

changing (so-called dynamic equilibrium). The organism is influenced by, and

influences, its environment and reaches a state of dynamic equilibrium in this

environment. Such a description of a system adequately fits the typical business

organization (Johnson, R.A., et al, 1964: 370-371).

Johnson, et al (1964) state that, the business organization is a man-made system, which

has a dynamic interplay with its environment which includes its customers, competitors,

labor organizations, suppliers, Government, and many other agencies.

―Furthermore, the business organization is a system of interrelated parts working

in conjunction with each other in order to accomplish a number of goals, both

those of the organization and those of individual participants. (Johnson, R.A., et

al, 1964: 371).

As per this theory therefore, media organizations, whether private and commercial or

non-profit making community radio stations, must constantly assess both internal and

external environments, in which an institution is operating in, in order to adapt

accordingly by adopting strategies that mitigate the threats identified, while seizing the

opportunities identified in such internal or external environment.

25

Internal environment involves assessing the internal resources, management structures,

talent management, use of technology, ownership, among others. External environmental

would identify factors arising beyond control of the media organization (community

radio) due to existing competition in the market (especially from commercial radio and

other media organizations), legal and policy issues, entry of new competition in the same

market, change of consumer tastes, and change of (media) technology, for instance, the

new media technologies and digital broadcasting, among others.

These are some of factors whose impact this study aimed to identify, in order to

recommend appropriate strategies which community radio can adopt to enhance their

sustainability in competitive, highly commercialized media environment.

The internal environment was investigated qualitatively, while the external environment

was interrogated quantitatively, and inferences drawn from information collected.

26

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

3.1: Research design

This study adopted case study design. This is an in-depth investigation of an individual,

group, institution or phenomenon, which is viewed as an example of a group of

individuals, institutions or phenomena. It is best research design when a researcher

intends to determine factors and relations among factors that have resulted in the

behaviour under study (Mugenda, O. & Mugenda, A.,2003).

3.2: Research Population

Mugenda, O. & Mugenda, A (2003) define population as an entire group of individuals,

events or objects, having common observable characteristics. They identify two kinds of

population:

Target population: This refers to the total set of subjects in a study where the research

will be generalized. For this study, the target population include community radio

stations that broadcast in vernacular and are members of Community Radio Association

of Kenya, which, according to Nyanjom, O (2012) include: Mang‘elete FM (Kibwezi,

Makueni), Bulala FM (Budalang‘i, Busia), Serian FM (Malaral, Samburu), Oltoilo le

Maa (Suswa, Narok), Mugambo Jwetu (Tigania West, Meru), Kangema FM (Kangema,

Murang‘a) Wajir FM (Wajir) (Nyathom, O. 2012: 26)

Accessible population: This refers to the set of subjects from which the sample of the

study is to be derived. Mang‘elete FM was purposively identified as the case study.

27

3.3: Research Approach; Sampling and Sampling Techniques

Qualitative method was employed to gather narrative data that required no numeral

figures. It was adopted to collect information on how commercialized media environment

has affected Mang‘elete FM, (and by extension, other community radio stations) via in-

depth interviews with board, management and staff of Mang‘elete radio station, media

legal experts, as well as local community members. In addition, relevant documents were

reviewed as additional sources of qualitative data.

Purposive sampling technique was used to identify the persons for the above mentioned

interviews. This is where cases were purposely identified because they hold the desired

information for this study. Quantitative method was employed to gather numeral data

from possible advertisers and listeners to understand their preferences between

commercial and community radio. This was informed by the fact that media

organizations strive to acquire as much listenership as possible, as a market product,

which they in turn ‗sell‘ to advertisers and sponsors for revenue generation, to sustain

themselves, whether commercial or community radio.

Specifically, the quantitative survey targeted:

a) Advertisers: Business organizations that have advertising power within the

geographical region of the study area. These included: Supermarkets, Timber and

hardware stores, Petrol stations, Cereals store, Boutiques, General shops, Cyber

café, Grocery, Grains stores, Electronics shops and a music store. Of interest in

this survey was to understand: what are the preferred radio stations to advertise

28

their businesses and why. Also, given a chance to make donation to support a

radio station in Ukambani, which one would it have been, and why?

b) Listeners Survey: They were be stratified into three clusters (Mtito Andei,

Kibwezi and Makindu) as per sex and urban centres. Of interest was to understand

which radio stations they listen, their favourite programmes (from which

station(s) and why, favourite presenters (from which station(s)) and why. Also,

given a chance to make donation to support a radio station in Ukambani, which

one would it have been, and why?

This was important, since the quality of programming and talent skills in a radio station

are related to its ability to sustain itself by gaining in listenership market share, which in

turn attract advertisers (or sponsors, in case of community radio stations), a major source

of revenue for these stations. A sample size of 45 possible advertisers was included in the

advertisers‘ survey while 240 cases of listeners were sampled for the listeners‘ survey.

Cluster sampling technique was employed to identify samples for both advertisers‘

survey and listeners‘ survey. This is because it was not possible to get a sampling frame

(for instance, it was not possible for example to know the total number of advertiser/

sponsor businesses within the study area. Thus, the urban centres were used as clusters.

Three (3) identified urban centres (source: Makueni county: First county integrated

development plan: 2013-2017) formed the clusters, therefore three (3) clusters, including:

Kibwezi, Makindu, Mtito Andei. From each cluster, cases for both advertisers‘ and

listeners‘ survey were selected via simple random sampling technique.

29

The following formula was used to calculate units per each cluster:

Advertisers’ survey sample:

1/3 x 45 = 15 units from Kibwezi town cluster

1/3 x 45 = 15 units from Makindu town cluster

1/3 x 45 = 15 units from MtitoAndei town cluster

Total: 45 units

Listeners’ survey sample:

According to Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, 2013 report , Makueni County

(including Kibwezi) population in 2012 was projected to be 922,183 consisting of

449,036 males and 473,147 females, representing a male-female sex ratio of 100:105

(Makueni County Integrated Development Plan, 2013:8). Using this ratio (male: female =

100:105); and with a sample size of 240; therefore sample units for each of three clusters

was calculated as follows:

1/3 x 240 = 80 listeners in Kibwezi town cluster

a) Men :

100/205 x 80 = 39.02, thus 39 males;

b) Women:

105/205 x80 = 40.97, thus 41 females

1/3 x 240 = 80 listeners in Makindu town cluster

a) Men :

100/205 x 80 = 39.02, thus 39 males;

30

b) Women:

105/205 x80 = 40.97, thus 41 females

1/3 x 240 = 80 listeners in Mtito Andei town cluster

a) Men :

100/205 x 80 = 39.02, thus 39 males;

b) Women:

105/205 x80 = 40.97, thus 41 females

Total: 240 units to be surveyed

3.4: Data Collection Instruments and Techniques

Data collection methods included administered questionnaires, interviews, Focus Group

Discussion, observation, and review of recorded data from documents. Questionnaires

were administered to gather quantitative data, while interview schedules were used to

gather qualitative data.

3.5: Data Instrument Pretesting

The questionnaire and the interview schedules were tested in Makindu town before actual

data collecting to ascertain their reliability. The results deduced from the pre-test were

used to refine the questionnaire and interview schedules.

31

3.6: Data Analysis

The qualitative and quantitative data collected was coded, analyzed and presented as

frequency distribution tables, graphs, charts, and narrations, from which inferences,

recommendations and conclusions were made.

32

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.0: Introduction

In this chapter analyzed data is presented using frequency distribution tables, histograms,

pie charts, narrations and discussions for qualitative description and summarized

according to common themes. The analysis is based on the study objectives and research

questions.

4.1: Respondents’ Response

The study received 100% response from the targeted respondents, both in qualitative and

quantitative data collection. Qualitatively, all the targeted face to face interviews

involving the management and staff of Mang‘elete community radio, a local community

member and a legal expert were conducted. The interviews included a one-on-one

sessions with a staff member, a local community member and a legal expert, while a

Focus Group Discussion that brought together five participants, including the executive

director, station Manager and three members of Board of Directors was also conducted.

Quantitatively, the response was also 100% in all clusters, both for Listeners and

Advertisers survey. Demographically, for listeners‘ survey, in terms of gender, the

research involved 117 men and 123 women, in a ratio of 1:1.05, as based on Makueni

County population‘s projection (Kenyan National Bureau of Statistics report, 2012);

translating to 48.75% of respondents being men, while women were 51.25% respectively:

33

Figure 4. 1: Respondents per Gender

Source: author

According to age, the frequency distribution table below indicates the spread respondents

who were picked randomly in the three clusters, in a range of 10 in all clusters:

Table 4.1: Respondents’ analysis

Cluster Makindu Kibwezi Mtito Andei Totals Rate

Age/ Gender Male female Male Female Male Female Male/ female Male/

female

15-24 12 20 6 6 14 11 69 28.75%

25 -34 9 12 10 15 10 11 67 27.92%

35 – 44 8 2 14 6 10 10 50 20.83%

45 – 54 5 6 2 8 3 6 30 12.5%

Above 55 5 1 7 6 2 3 24 10%

Totals 39 41 39 41 39 41 240 Cases 100%

34

Advertisers‘ survey involved 15 cases per cluster (Mtito Andei, Kibwezi and Makindu

clusters). The study received a 100% response from total targeted 45 advertiser-cases,

which were randomly picked. These cases included petrol stations; a cereals stores;

boutique; Supermarket; general stores shops; Cyber café; grocery; Electronics shop and a

Music store.

4.2: Findings and Discussion

4.2.1: Effect of commercialized media environment on Community radio:

Radio medium Popularity: A report by Synovate on Media consumption habits in Kenya

(2011) indicate that radio is the most accessed media.

Figure 4.2: Media Consumption Habits in Kenya (2011)

Source: Synovate report

35

This is confirmed by a Country Report by Open Society Foundations, titled: Mapping

Digital media-Kenya (2013), which indicates that 74 percent of Kenyans have access to

the country‘s 120 radio stations, most of them FM stations owned by individuals and

various organizations including the government. Television is the second most popular

medium, accessed by 28 percent of the population, followed in distant third by

Newspapers.

The popularity of radio as a medium was confirmed in this study where 236 cases out of

possible 240 cases, translating to 98.33% of the sampled listeners‘ cases, responded to

have access to radio. The research revealed that most of these respondents consume radio

daily.

Figure 4.3: Radio Consumption Kibwezi, Mtito and Makindu

36

Source: (Author)

37

Figure 4.4 Total frequency of listenership:

Source: (Author)

This radio access is mostly through radio set, even though few respondents indicated that

they access it through mobile phone.

Figure 4.5 Radio access

38

Source: (Author)

39

Figure 4.6: Total radio medium access:

Source: Author

This indicates that for the community radio, it may not be a priority to invest on

information technologies such as streaming on the internet, since the targeted population

especially in most rural areas, receive radio broadcasts via radio sets. The community

radio station should first identify the technologies accessible to its audience before

employing such technologies, to avoid misapplication resources.

4.2.2: Listener preference: Commercial radio stations versus Community radio

station

The study sought to understand the specific impact of commercial radio stations

broadcasting in South Eastern Kenya, on Mang‘elete FM as a community radio station,

by investigating the listeners‘ preferences. The listeners were asked to state how often

they listen to listed radio stations, and the findings were as follows:

40

Table 4.2: Listening frequency: Makindu, Mtito Andei and Kibwezi clusters

combined

Those who listen once a day or once a week, explained that they do so as a result of

loyalty to certain programme (s). Commercial stations have the larger listenership, both

in male and female listeners. The listenership of Mang‘elete FM was found to be fairly

high in Mtito Andei cluster, where 22.5% respondents indicated they listen to the station

at once a day or week. However, this listenership reduces with distance; where it is barely

listened to in the neighbouring Kibwezi and Makindu clusters. Most volunteers at

Mang‘elete radio come from Mtito Andei. This shows that there is co-relationship

between the volunteer programme at the station and its listenership market. Volunteerism

denotes local community participation not only in management, but also in production of

programmes affects the station‘s listenership.

Station Through out

%

Once a day

%

Once a week

%

Don’t Listen

%

Musyi 58.75 30.42 8.75 2.5

Athiani 6.67 19.17 12.5 61.67

Mang’elete 0 2.08 7.08 90.83

Mbaitu 1.67 0.83 4.58 92.92

county 0.83 1.67 7.92 89.58

41

During a Focus Group Discussion with the Directors and Management of Mang‘elete

radio station, it was revealed that this poor listenership, compared to commercial stations,

is due to the fact that Mang‘elete radio barely broadcasts beyond a 50 Kilometre radius,

even though it is licensed for a coverage of as much as 100 Kilometre radius, and that, it

has capacity to broadcast beyond this coverage area. As explained during the focused

group discussion, this is as result of dilapidated broadcasting equipment as a result years

of neglect and lack of service. The station, which officially broadcasts for 16 hours a day,

from 6.00am to 10.00pm, has no capacity to broadcast for long time due to frequent

power outages, with no alternative power source back-up. The available generator that

was acquired with support of donors broke down.

4.2.3: Operational Sustainability - Programming: Mang’elete FM versus

Commercial radio stations

Maina S. N., (2013) states that every successful radio station, whether a public

broadcaster, commercial or community radio, must appeal to the interests, tastes, and

desires of its audience.

Mang‘elete community radio was established out of an interest to fill a communication

gap that had been identified by the local women groups in Nthongoni, to promote

education in food security programmes, environmental conservation, among other

initiatives that MCIDP (MBOSONI) women groups were involved in. Therefore, nearly

all its initial programmes were development oriented, covering agriculture, health,

HIV/AIDS, environmental conservation, human rights and governance, women

42

empowerment, children rights, water issues, as well as children programmes, produced in

partnership with local schools. However, with drying revenue, the station has been unable

to produce and air these programmes as it used to, a void that commercial radio stations

have exploited to gain audience away from Mang‘elete radio, even though they are profit

oriented, rather than development oriented. These stations, with sound management and

sound financial revenue, have been able to respond to listeners programming needs, tastes

and desire in a way that Mang‘elete radio station has been unable to.

This study sought to understand these listeners‘ programming preferences. It was found

out that, 26.67% of listeners were interested in News, 10.83% in Entertainment and while

16.67% listened developmental programmes. However, majority of listeners (41.25%)

preferred a ‗cocktail‘ content programming that included news, entertainment, and

developmental programmes, among others.

Figure 4.7 Listeners programming interest

Source: (Author)

43

Part of the reasons why commercial radio stations are able to command high listenership

where Mang‘elete should, was described during an interview with one of the staff

members, Theophilus Mutua*¹ (Not real name) who described Mang‘elete station‘s

programming that:

―Mang‘elete radio station‘s management depends fully on volunteers with little

training in programming and radio production. These are the persons who are not

expensive to pay. With no capacity even to produce radio programmes in the field

as it used to be 5 years ago, since we have no reliable equipment such as

recorders, and with no ability to produce quality, informative and localized news

programmes, Mang‘elete FM cannot compete for audience with commercial

stations. Each time there is a change of management, a new programming

structure is abruptly put in place, up to the point that currently, there exists no

definite programming schedule.‖

According to him, the station‘s programming system is disoriented, not helped by

leadership crises that have affected the management of station. More so, the station‘s

programming has been compromised by conflict of interest from the local community

(MCIDP) who have been influencing to their own people (relatives) to be employed at

the station.

4.2.4: Financial Sustainability: Balancing Donor funding against local community

involvement:

Conrad, D (2011) studied six community radio stations in East Africa by Conrad (2011)

found that a community radio station ownership model would be unsustainable if the said

station was purely created and sustained through external donations. The challenge in this

case is strike the balance so that any donor facilitation is based on the foundation that the

local community is capable of maintaining its sustainability, in case the donor support

comes to an end.

44

The existing literature on sustainability of community media projects that are built on

donor funding indicate that those projects become challenged once the donors cease their

support. However, properly managed, donor relations, which go hand in hand with

building the local capacity to maintain the support from within the community, then the

community project will have capacity remain sustainable.

Initially, Mang‘elete community radio project had sound foundation that involved donor

support and community ownership and engagement. AMREF, an organization that had

been working within the local community had identified need for education on nutrition

to the local community in order to reduce high child mortality rate in the area. A

community radio was seen as an ideal medium to help these women groups achieve their

goals, as AMREF used the same to build the capacity of the local community.

With donor funding from SIDA through ECONEWS, with local community making

bricks and providing labour, the current premises of Mang‘elete radio station at

Nthongoni were constructed in 2001, which included two studios. The donors also helped

equip the station with broadcast equipment, as well as supporting a nine week training

programme on media production for volunteers drawn from the local community, while

others were sponsored to train for diploma courses in communication at the government

owned Kenya Institute of Mass Communication.

The MCIDP Management was able to acquire transmitting license with support of the

then Information and communications Permanent Secretary Mr. Titus Naikuni, which

45

they were to pay an annual license fee of Kshs. 30,000.00. This paved way for

Mang‘elete community radio station to go air on February 2004. By the time the station

went on air in 2004, it had received a cumulative donor support worth Kshs. 67.2

million*². The funding from SIDA went for 5 years, from 2004 to 2009. Meanwhile,

another benefactor, EMIS-Kenya, a Danish organization supported the station to

construct the administration block.

With donor funding, Mang‘elete community radio was one of the most promising

community media success stories not only in Kenya but also in Africa. In order to

supplement donor support for the radio, the women groups established several projects,

including poultry keeping, tree planting, a posho mill, among others, of which part of

proceeds from these projects was remitted for management of the radio.

In addition, the station had some local businesses such as Makueni Cotton Ginnery

sponsoring a regular agricultural programmes, while the Catholic Diocese of Machakos

supported airing of two religious programmes: ―Thayu witu‖ (―our life‖) and ―Nikukee na

Nikuutuka” (―It dawned and it is dusk‖), bringing in regular revenue. Other sources of

revenue included sell of greeting cards, announcements and commercial adverts, as well

as producing music for some local choirs at the station‘s studio. The management also

leased out part of the station‘s transmitter‘s bandwidth to Safaricom, a

telecommunications company in Kenya. On average annually, the management would

internally generated Kshs. 1.5 million as revenue that would supplement donors‘ funding.

46

However, as from 2009, the women group‘s management started facing leadership

wrangles, and collapse of ECONEWS Africa (ENA) in 2010 which had also been

instrumental in the establishment of the Kenya Community Media Network

(KCOMNET), a capacity building organization which Mang‘elete radio station was a

member – left a void that has not yet been filled in the East African sub-region (Da Costa,

2012) and this abruptly soured the donor relations, and donor revenue dried up. Most of

the projects that generated revenue from the women groups in support of the station

started failing, while the few the sponsors of development programmes stopped their

sponsorships, a fact that made Mang‘elete Community radio start experiencing financial

crisis. It could no longer provide the revenue needed to support the station; including

radio programmes production, as well as maintaining the workforce that had taken years

to train.

This was a time when commercial radio stations broadcasting in vernacular were

mushrooming, and Mang‘elete FM became a ‗victim‘ of talent poaching. Virtually all the

trained volunteers left the station for better working conditions and terms offered by the

commercial radio stations.

These former Mang‘elete trained radio Presenters, including: Irene Wavinya Muthiani

(Musyi FM), Carol Mwinzi (Athiani), Stanley Kyengo (Musyi FM), Titus Mutinda (

Athiani FM), Mukunu Mbwiko (Mbaitu FM), Frankie Nyamai ( Mbaitu FM), Onesmus

Mwengei (Musyi FM) among others, are currently the top talent in commercial radio

stations broadcasting in Kamba language, as found out in this study, where the listeners

47

were asked to name three radio presenters they know, and their responses were timed in

periods of 0-10 seconds, 10-20 seconds and above 20 seconds. It was found out that the

listeners could easily name commercial radio stations presenters within 0-10 and 10-20

seconds margin, but they hardly remembered current presenters from Mang‘elete FM.

68.33% of listeners named presenters from Musyi FM, a commercial radio station, of

which majority are former employees of Mang‘elete Community radio within 0-10

seconds and further 21.25% named them within 10-20 seconds. 8.33% of the listeners

named Athiani FM (commercial radio) presenters within 0-10 seconds (8.33%) and

33.75% could name them within 10-20 seconds. Mang‘elete Community radio presenters

were barely mentioned, with an average of 4.58% listeners naming three radio station‘s

presenters within 10-20 and while 95.42 of listeners could only manage to name them

after 20 seconds, or not at all .

Figure 4.8 Radio Presenters Popularity

48

Source: (Author)

49

Figure 4.9 Total Presenter popularity:

Source: (Author)

Such popularity with listeners was found to also affect the advertisers‘ preference, who

preferred to advertise on more popular commercial radio stations, which would mean that

commercial radio stations get the advertisers‘ revenue:

Table 4. 3: Advertisers’ preference to advertise:

Radio station %

Musyi 86.67

Athiani 6.67

Mang‘elete 4.44

Mbaitu 2.22

County 0

50

Figure 4.10 Advertisers’ Preference To Advertise

Source: (Author)

4.2.5: Institutional and organizational sustainability - Leadership, management and

community participation: Commercial radio versus Community radio

Commercial radio stations are privately owned, and therefore, have stable leadership, that

is modeled to guide the station towards profit making. In contrast, according to the

Guidelines for Application of Community Radio License (September 2011) by

Communications Authority of Kenya (formerly Communications Commission of Kenya),

community radio stations should not be operated for profit, or as or part of profit making

enterprises, and must be operated by persons who represent the interests of the

community serviced, while at the same time, members of the community being served are

encouraged to participate in the operations of the station, including selection and

production of its programmes.

51

This is meant to bring about sense of ownership of the media by the community being

served while promoting community‘s participation in running the station, and its content

production. According to the said guidelines (2011), community participation is a crucial

element that must be satisfied to acquire a community radio broadcasting license in

Kenya. This does not apply in securing a private/ commercial media broadcasting license,

where community participation is not a requirement.

Mang‘elete radio broadcasting license was acquired in 2004, before these regulations

came into being. Despite this lack of regulations then, local community participation was

imperative in setting up the station. The radio station has a Board of seven (7) Directors

including a Chairperson, Secretary and a Treasurer, two member-Directors, (all elected

by the 33 women groups), and an Executive Director elected from the members of the

Board. Also, the radio station‘s Manager is an ex-officio in the Board. These Directors

would be elected after every 3 years. This is the main decision making body. The Station

Manager is assisted in the daily management of the radio station by four Heads of

Departments: Finance; Production; News and Programming.

After the launch of the station in February 2004, the Board and the Management would

hold regular meetings to decide on various issues of the station, as well as review

programming and revenue generation in support of the radio. The station would also

engage community resource persons in its various programmes according to their areas of

expertise, while using community opinion leaders for community mobilization. This

made the station very popular with the local community.

52

However, in 2009, once the radio station was rocked with leadership wrangles, it took an

order of court in 2014, to force the women group members to elect new officials, after

years of mismanagement.

During that period, donors pulled out, the local programme sponsors stopped their

sponsorship, and the station started experiencing financial difficulties. The station had to

pull out of AMARC, a World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters, as a result

of its inability to pay the membership fees. The station‘s equipment fell into disrepair,

including its sole power generator, to extend that it could only broadcast erratically with a

radius of 50km. While the station could engage as many as 30 volunteer staff members

when it started in 2004, it currently has 11 volunteers who, by the time this study was

being undertaken, had not been paid for two months. While the Mang‘elete community

radio station has been undergoing these leadership and management challenges, the

commercial stations have been thriving and growing.

4.2.6: Social Sustainability: Goodwill Support from Local community:

Jeniffer Mwende lives three Kilometres from Mang‘elete Radio Station, and operates an

autospares shop at Nthongoni Market, few metres from the station. Mang‘elete FM is her

favourite station, due to the fact she is related to it, not only as a community member, but

also because her mother is a member of one of the 33 women groups that own the station.

In addition, according to her, it is still development oriented, despite its challenges and

therefore she would not mind to contribute financially to support it.

53

This study sought to quantitatively investigate if the goodwill Jeniffer Mwende expressed

during a face-to face interview could be translated into material and financial support,

and if, between the community radio and commercial stations, which one the locals

would support. The listeners were asked that, given Kshs. 500.00 to donate to their

preferred station as charity support, which one they would donate to. In all sampled

clusters (Mtito, Kibwezi and Makindu), most listeners would support their popular

(commercial) stations, with 73.33% listeners favouring supporting Musyi FM and Athiani

FM enjoying 7.92% of listeners‘ goodwill. Despite its challenges, Mang‘elete

Community radio enjoys considerable good will from12.08% listeners sampled.

Table 4. 4: Listeners’ preferred radio station for charity support

Station %

Musyi 73.33

Athiani 7.92

Mang’elete 12.08

Mbaitu 2.5

County 2.5

Others 1.25

54

Figure 4. 11: Listeners’ preferred radio station for charity support

Possible and potential advertisers expressed higher level of goodwill of charity support

for Mang‘elete FM, where 24.22% would donate to support the community radio, while a

combined 75.78% of the advertisers would opt for commercial radio stations.

Figure 4.12: Advertisers’ preferred radio station for charity support

55

Some of the reasons the respondents gave for their support for Mang‘elete community

radio were that: ‗The station is within vicinity, therefore, ‗ours‘‘; that ‗they want it to

grow and be visible‘ and that ‗Because it is not well equipped like other stations

(Sympathetic vote)‘. Other reasons given included: ‗It used to be used to broadcast

development oriented and educative programmes‘ while some respondents would support

it because they are members of women groups that own the station.

Some of the reasons why the respondents would prefer to support a commercial station

included: ‗The private stations (Musyi FM and Athiani FM stations) have (respondents‘)

preferred presenters‘; they have quality and variety in their programming‘; ‗they

broadcast listeners‘ feedback, making listener feel appreciated‘; and that ‗their news

bulletin are comprehensive, covering local, regional, national and international events‘.

Other reasons given were that commercial radio stations ‗are the most popular stations

and most listened to in the region (bandwagon)‘; ‗their broadcasting signal is clear and

uninterrupted‘ and that ‗they promote themselves through road shows‘.

NOTES:

Theophilus Mutua*¹ (page 53): The interviewee requested anonymity.

Kshs 67.2 Million*² (page 55): Figures as quoted during a Focus Group Discussion with

the Mang‘elete Community Radio‘s Board of Directors and Station manager

56

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

5.0: Introduction

This chapter summarizes the findings of this investigation, which respond to the three

research questions identified in chapter one: How has commercialized media

environment in Kenya affected the sustainability of community radio? What are main

sustainability challenges and opportunities for community radio? What sustainability

lessons can be learnt on existing community radio models in Kenya? The summary of the

findings are derived from analyzing the data gathered both qualitatively and

quantitatively and discussed in chapter four. The findings form basis for the

recommendations made thereafter.

5.1: Summary of findings

In objective one on impact of commercialized media environment on Mangelete

community radio project, the study found that the sustainability of community radio is

highly challenged by growing commercially oriented radio stations. With their superior

broadcasting signal, quality multi-content programming that covers development issues,

topical and current affairs commercial radio stations have been able to satisfy listener

tastes, interests and needs better, compared to community radio stations, therefore

gaining high listener preference.

Also, most listeners prefer ‗multi-content‘ programming. With their superior quality news

bulletins, entertainment programmes and programmes that cover development issues,

commercial radio stations are able to satisfy listener tastes, interests and needs better,

57

compared to community radio stations, hence gaining higher ratings that attract

advertisers. Most listeners and advertisers prefer commercial radio stations to Mang‘elete

community radio station (which, like the sole community radio in the region broadcast, in

vernacular) due to their superior quality and reliable signal.

In addition, better working conditions have made commercial radio stations attractive to

the trained radio presenters and producers, who, in the case of Mang‘elete Radio station

are poached from the community radio, after a lot of donor resources being used to train

them.

In objective two on challenges and opportunities, it was clear that poor leadership and

management of Mang‘elete community radio projects have affected its ability to remain

viable and sustainable. In addition, with low or lack of local community participation in

decision making and operations, the community radio projects have been unable to

sustain themselves once the donors cease their support.

In objective three on lessons learnt, the study found out that there is co-relationship

between the volunteers‘ programme at the Mang‘elete community radio station and its

listenership. In this study, it was clear that community members were loyal to Mang‘elete

radio station if one of their own works at the station. In addition, Mang‘elete Community

radio enjoys considerable goodwill from the local community due to the sense of

ownership, its proximity to the community and ability to engage community‘s

58

participation in its management and operations. This goodwill means that local

community would donate in support of ‗their‘ community radio if requested.

Finally, if community participation and involvement is well grounded in a community

radio project, it has ability to withstand shocks of donor exit, since it will have strong

social and institutional sustainability foundation.

5.2: Recommendations

5.2.1: Enhancing local community’s participation in managing community radio

project

The overall sustainability of community radio is dependent on how local community

embraces the ownership of the same. This would become possible if there is grounded

system for local community‘s participation not only in decision making processes of the

community station, but also in actual operations of the station. Once strength that

community radio stations have over commercial radio stations is proximity of such

stations to the communities they serve. In this, it is easy to use initiatives such as

volunteerism to increase local community participation in managing and running the

station, which would bring about sense of ownership, hence ensuring the station‘s social

sustainability.

5.2.2: Understanding the local community interests, tastes and needs

Despite the fact that community radio stations are licensed to operate as non-profit

making entities, unlike commercial radio stations, they all compete for the same audience

59

market. Even though community radio stations are not commercial enterprises, the

Communication Authority of Kenya guidelines allow them to attract sponsored

announcement/ programmes within the law. In order to attract even this limited

sponsorship, they must gain trust of listeners, which put themselves in competition with

commercial media.

The fact that the community radio stations are owned by local community and more

important, they are based within the communities they serve make it easy for them to

gain loyal listenership, which in turn would draw attention of possible local sponsors.

However listeners would demand that, for them to give this loyal listenership, the

community radio station must also satisfy their interests, tastes and needs. This will be

possible if these community radio stations have a structured way of understanding what

their listeners need or want by encouraging them to participate in programming and give

feedback.

5.2.3: Tapping into local community’s goodwill

Community radio stations hold community‘s goodwill which they can tap for support,

due to the fact that local people identify with the stations proximity. In this study, those

interviewed were willing to support the Mang‘elete Radio station because they viewed

the station as an ideal medium for articulating local development issues, compared to

commercial media, based on the past programmes the community radio station has

carried. These members of local community, not necessarily members of the 33 women

groups, but ordinary members, would be willing to support the station financially and

60

materially, as found out in this study. The Station‘s new leadership needs to engage such

persons.

5.2.4: Develop network & collaborations- community radio networks

When Mang‘elete radio station was an active member of some local and international

community radio networks, it had a vibrant capacity building programme that enabled it

to develop talent in-house. Such associations can also aid to lower the cost of

programmes production for Community radio stations, since they provide ‗ready-made‘

programmes as well as news that can be customized for local use. In addition, such

networks would provide a forum for benchmarking with other community radio projects

elsewhere.

5.2.5: Need for a comparative research on sustainability of community radio

stations in a commercialized media environment

This research limited itself to a single case study of a community radio station in Kenya,

based in rural area. There are 12 similar community radio stations, located in rural as well

as urban centres. In order to develop a clear understanding of whether the challenges and

opportunities identified in this study are applicable on other community radio stations,

and to document more lessons learnt, there is need to undertake a comparative study that

involves more than one case study.

61

5.3: Conclusion

Research work by development communication scholars world over confirm that

community radio is an ideal development tool to empower local communities that it

serves. Fraser and Restrepo-Estrada (2002) point out that community radio project would

begin attaining sustainability beyond donor exit when it gains the community‘s sense of

internal cohesion and consciousness. A community that participates to analyze its needs

in detail and think about the causes of its problems and marginalization will often come

to the conclusion that it requires communication to help people formulate common

understanding and common goals. This is the foundation stone for a sustainable

community radio station (Fraser and Restrepo-Estrada (2002).

More so, it is imperative for development communication scholars and researchers to pay

closer attention to sustainability challenges bearing on community radio projects as a

result of rapidly growing commercial radio stations (and any other commercial media).

This means that more research work is required on this area.

62

REFERENCES

Allen, K.& Gagliardone, I. (2011).The Media Map Project: Kenya: Case Study snapshot

of Donor support to ICTs and media, 2011. Washington DC;Internews.

Banda,F. (2003).Community Radio Broadcasting in Zambia: A policy perspective. Phd

Thesis, University of South Africa.

Conrad, D. (2011) Lost in the Shadows of the Radio Tower: A Return to the Roots of

Community Radio Ownership in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. What happens

when / if the donor leaves? Presentation delivered at the 2011 International

Communication Association Conference. 28 May 2011, Boston.

Curran, James. (1991). ―Rethinking the media as a public sphere.‖ Pp. 28-57 in

Communication and Citizenship: Journalism and the Public Sphere in the New

Media Age, (ed) P. Dahlgren and C. Sparks. London: Routledge.

Da Costa, P., (2012). The Growing Pains of Community radio in Africa: Emerging

Lessons towards Sustainability. (Nordicam Review 33 (2012) Special Issue,

pp135 -148)

Dunaway, D., (1998).Community Radio at the beginning of the 21st century:

commercialism vs. Community power. Javnost-The Public;1998, Vol. 5 Issue

2.(Internet Source: http://javnost-thepublic.org/article/pdf/1998/2/7/ )

Fraser, C. &Restrepo-Estrada, S..(2002).Community Radio for Change and

Development.London; Sage publications.

Fraser, C. &Restrepo-Estrada, S. (1998). Communicating for Development.Human

Change for Survival. London: Tauris.

63

Githethwa N.,(Ed), (2008).The way forward for community Radios in Kenya. Nairobi;

Econews Africa.

IPSOS SynovateReport(2014): Ipsos in Kenya Newsletter. (Internet source:

http://www.ipsos.co.ke/news/downloads/Ipsos%20Kenya%20News%20-

%20March%202014.pdf)

IPSOS Synovate Report(2011): Explosion in media changes: Audience and advertising

trends in Kenya (Internet source:

http://www.ipsos.co.ke/home/reports/?page=media_research&option=5)

Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge:

Polity Press.

Jallov, B. (2007). Community radio in East Africa: An impact and sustainability

assessment of three community radios within the EACMP. Stockholm; SIDA

department of Democracy and Social Development. (Internet Source:

http://webzone.k3.mah.se/projects/comdev/_comdev_PDF_doc/scp08_sem2_Im

pact_Assessment_EACMP.pdf )

Johnson, R.A; Kast, F. E. & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1964).System Theory and Management.

Seattle; University of Washington.

Kanyegirire, A (2002). Putting participatory communication into practice through

community radio: A case study of how policies on programming and production

are formulated and implemented at Radio Graaff-Reinet. (MA thesis)Port

Elizabeth; Rhodes University (Internet source:

http://eprints.ru.ac.za/2362/1/KANYEGIRIRE-MAJourn-TR03-142.pdf )

64

Kenya Media Programme: Baseline Survey on Citizen’s Perception of The Media Report

(2011).(Internet source: http://www.kmp.or.ke/images/downloads/Hivos-

Baseline-Survey-on-Citizens-Perception-of-the-Media-Final-Report1.pdf )

Maina, S. N. (2013). Communication Strategies Employed by Kenya Community Radio

in fostering social cohesion and integration in Kenya. (MA thesis).International

Journal of Social Sciences and Entrepreneurship, 1 (5), 688-713. (Internet

source: http://www.ijsse.org/articles/ijsse_v1_i5_688_713.pdf )

Makueni County: First County Integrated Development Plan: 2013-2017 (Internet

source:

http://www.kenyampya.com/userfiles/Makueni%20CIDP%20sept2013(1).pdf )

Mugenda, O. &Mugenda, A. (2003).Research methods: Quantitative & Qualitative

approaches. Nairobi; Acts press.

Mytton, G. (1999). Handbook on Radio and Television Audience Research. Paris;

UNICEF/ UNESCO/ BBC World Service Training Trust (Internet source:

http://www.cba.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/audience_research.pdf )

Nyabuga, G & Booker, N. (2013): Mapping digital media: Kenya. Open Society

Foundations (internet source:

http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/mapping-digital-

media-kenya-20130321.pdf )

Nyanjom, O. (2012). Factually True, Legally Untrue: Political Media Ownership in

Kenya. Nairobi; Internews

65

Oriare, P; Okello-Orlale, R. &Ugangu W. (2010). The Media We Want: The Kenya

Media vulnerabilities Study. Nairobi; Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES).

Servaeas J. (Ed) (2002). Approaches to Development Communication. Paris; UNESCO

Tufte M. & Mefalopulos, P. (2009). Participatory Communication: A practical guide.

Washington DC; The international Bank for Reconstruction and Development/

World Bank.

Webster, F. (1995). Theories of the Information Society, 3rd

edition. London: Routledge.

Williams, K. (2003). Understanding Media Theory. London; Arnold publishers.

66

APPENDICES

Appendix I: Location of the Makueni County in Kenya

67

Appendix II: Makueni County Administrative units/political units

68

Appendix III: Interviews Programme As Conducted

Date and time

of interview

Type of

interview

Who (Interviewer/

Interviewee

Venue of

interview

Comment

Friday; August

22, 2014

9.30am –

12.30pm

Focused

discussion

group

Redempta Nthia –

mang‘elete community

radio founder, current

executive director;

Meshack Nyamai:

Station manager;

3 Board of Directors

Members

Interviewer/ facilitator:

James Singa

Director‘s

Officer;

Administration

Block;

Mang‘elete

community

radio

premises;

Nthongoni

market

Interview

conducted as

scheduled.

Their phone

numbers not to

be published.

Friday; August

22, 2014

Time: 3pm –

4.30pm

One-on one

Interview

Interviewee: Theophilus

Mutua; radio Presenter,

Mang‘elete community

radio

Interviewer: James

Singa

MICDP hall

Mang‘elete

Radio

premises

Interviewee

requested

anonymity,

therefore his/

her name being

used in this

report is not

real.

August 23, 2014

10am – 11.15am

One-on-one

interview

Interviewee: Jennifer

Mwende; community

member, Nthongoni

Interviewer: james

Singa

At Jeniffer

Mwende‘s

Autospares

store,

Nthongoni

market

Interview

conducted as

scheduled

August 26, 2014

2.30pm –

3.00pm

One-on-one

Interview

Interviewee: Nesline

Okiko, high court

advocate

Interviewer: James

Singa

At his offices;

railway

headquarters

building, Haile

Sellasie

avenue,

Nairobi

Interview

conducted as

scheduled.

69

Appendix IV: Listener’s Survey Questionnaire

Cluster (Tick appropriately): Kibwezi [ ] Makindu [ ] Mtito Andei [ ]

Gender: Male [ ] female [ ]

Age:

a. 15 - 24 years [ ]

b. 25 – 34 Years [ ]

c. 35 – 44 years [ ]

d. 45 – 54 years [ ]

e. 55 - Above [ ]

Do you listen to radio? Yes [ ] No [ ]

If yes, how do you access it? (Tick where appropriate)

a) Radio set [ ]

b) Mobile phone [ ]

c) Car Radio [ ]

d) Internet [ ]

How often do you listen to radio (Tick where appropriate)

a) Daily [ ]

b) Twice a week [ ]

c) Once a week [ ]

d) I don‘t listen [ ]

Why do you listen to radio? For:

a) Entertainment [ ]

b) News [ ]

c) Education on Developmental issues [ ]

d) Passing time [ ]

e) Other (specify)……………………………………………………………

70

Tick where appropriate

I listen to:

Radio station Frequency

Throughout

the day

Once everyday Once every week I don’t

listen

Musyi FM

Athiani FM

Mang‘elete FM

Mbaitu FM

County FM

Syokimau FM

Others (Specify)……

Suppose you have kshs.500.00 to donate in support of your favourite radio station, which

one would you support? (Tick one)

Radio station Tick

Musyi FM

Athiani FM

Mang‘elete FM

Mbaitu FM

County FM

Syokimau FM

Other

Why? .................................................................................................................................

(The interviewer to check the time taken to answer the question below, and tick where

appropriate)

Name 3 presenters you know from:

a) Musyi FM : Time taken: 0-10 seconds [ ] 10 – 20 seconds [ ] over 20

seconds [ ]

b) Mbaitu FM: Time taken: 0-10 seconds [ ] 10 – 20 seconds [ ] over 20

seconds [ ]

c) Mang’elete FM: Time taken: 0-10 seconds [ ] 10 – 20 seconds [ ] over 20

seconds [ ]

d) Athiani FM: Time taken: 0-10 seconds [ ] 10 – 20 seconds [ ] over 20

seconds [ ]

e) County FM: Time taken: 0-10 seconds [ ] 10 – 20 seconds [ ] over 20

seconds [ ]

f) Syokimau FM: Time taken: 0-10 seconds [ ] 10 – 20 seconds [ ] over 20

seconds [ ]

Thank very much for your input and time!

71

Appendix V: Advertisers’ Survey Questionnaire

Cluster (Tick appropriately): Kibwezi [ ] Makindu [ ] Mtito Andei [ ]

Type of Business/ Organization :……………………………………………………....

Have you ever advertised your business through a radio station YES [ ] NO [ ]

If yes, which one?................................................................................................................

If you were to advertise your business through radio, which of the following radio

stations would you prefer to advertise through (tick where appropriate):

Radio station Tick

Musyi FM

Athiani FM

Mang‘elete FM

Mbaitu FM

County FM

Syokimau FM

Other (specify): …………………

Why do you prefer the station picked?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

Suppose you have Kshs. 500.00 to donate as support to your radio of choice, which one

would you donate to? (Tick where appropriate)

Radio station Tick

Musyi FM

Athiani FM

Mang‘elete FM

Mbaitu FM

County FM

Syokimau FM

Other (specify): …………………

Why do you prefer the station picked?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

Thank very much for your input and time!

72

Appendix VI: Interview Schedules

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE: Social Sustainability: Official - Mang’elete Community

Integrated Development Programme (MCIDP)

- Why was Mang‘elete FM set up? Does it serve the same purpose and vision

today?

- What is the relationship between MCIDP and management of Mang‘elete FM?

- How is MCIDP involved in running and supporting the station?

- What is the relationship between MCIDP and donors in funding Mang‘elete FM?

- What is the relationship between the station and the local community? How does

local community support the management of the radio? How and in what capacity

- What are the challenges you think face the station internally and externally?

- What opportunities exist to ensure continued existence of the station?

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE: MANG’ELETE FM MANAGER:

a) Station’s revenue sustainability and management

- How does the station sustain itself?

- Who and where does it get financing from for its operations (grants? Advertising?

Donations? Subscriptions?

- How sustainable are those sources?

- How dependent is the station on donor funding? Who are they?

- How has been their financing for the last 5-10 years? (specific figures annually)

- How many donors have withdrawn support if any and why?(figures for the last 5

years)

- How many are currently funding and what are they funding?

- Apart from donor support, how does the station raise revenue?

- How are revenues generated managed and monitored within the station (NB what

is the administrative structure of the station?)

b) Internal environment: Staff sustainability

- How many staff members current? Their designations?

- How many are trained in community radio operations? At what level- College?

Seminar courses? etc

- How many with no formal training?

- How many volunteers? How many employed? (Figures for the last 5 years

- Volunteers: where do they come from (home distance (in KM) from the radio

station)?

- How capable is the station to sustain/ retain them?

c) Programming sustainability

- What programmes do you air? (Get and analyze a programme schedule for a

week, compare a current programme schedule and a past one say… 5-8 years ago)

- Who funds your programming?

- How is the listenership? How is it measured? How does the station benefit from

the loyal listenership to sustain itself?

73

- Are there programmes that you have had to retire? Which ones and Why? (Lack

of financing (donor exit)? Exit of producers? Poor listenership rating? Lack of

programme resources for content? End of programme cycle?)

- Membership to any media networks? Which ones and for what purpose?

- Any other programming challenges do you experience? Which ones?

d) Facilities and adoption of technology (Audience coverage and sustainability):

- How adequate are your media facilities? (Any production studio? Outdoor

production equipment, Etc) Who finances (Financed) their acquisition)

- Any studio? How is it equipped?

- Are you streaming your station? Any website?

- How does the station develop content? Any support (e.g. network support

e.gfor‗ready-made‘programmes) from partners? Who?

e) Interventions:

- What do you think need to be done to make Mang‘elete FM gain competitive

edge against all other existing FM stations ?

- Any support from government (national and county) and its agencies (CAK,

MCK etc)? Of what nature?

- What other avenues that can be used to help generate more revenue for the

station? Which ones are planned for implementation?

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE: STAFF MEMBER:

- How are the working conditions? Pay? Job satisfaction?

- Given opportunity to go to private station, would you leave Mang‘elete? Why?

- Do you see yourself working in this station in the next five years? Why?

- What do you think need to be done to make Mang‘elete FM an employer-station

of choice for you?

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE: LOCAL COMMUNITY MEMBER

- Does Mang‘elete Radio serve its purpose as development medium tool?

- What is the relationship between the station and the local community? How does

local community support the management of the radio? How and in what capacity

- What are the challenges you think face the station internally and externally?

- What opportunities exist to ensure continued existence of the station?

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE: MEDIA LAW SCHOLAR/ ADVOCATE

- How adequate is the law as it exists to ensure survival of community radios in

Kenya? (is law sufficient enough to support survival of community radio against

commercialized media environment?)

- What hiccups exist in law(s) that affect sustainability of community radio?

- What would be legal remedies to strengthen law in support of community radios